Sen. Craig loses appeal in airport sex sting case

AP via SFGate ^ | 12/9/8 | STEVE KARNOWSKI, Associated Press Writer

[SmithL]

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) -- Idaho Sen. Larry Craig has lost his latest attempt to withdraw his guilty plea in a Minneapolis airport men's room sex sting.

[F16Fighter]

"Second sentence. Compare to the stories out today regarding Illinois Gov. Blagojevich ."

You mean the reference to Party affiliation HERE:

A three-judge panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals on Tuesday rejected the Republican's bid to toss out his disorderly conduct conviction...

Versus NO mention by the MSM of party affiliation regarding Illinois Gov. Blagojevich??

Nope, hadn't noticed ;-)

[Badeye]

They should lock Craig and Stevens up together.

[08bil98z24]

Senator Craig is not the only prominent Queen, there are still closeted prominent married Queens in the Republican Party, some married, some not.

Craig got arrested in a bathroom sex sting. No other Republican's in recent time have been nailed (no pun intended) in a bathroom sex sting.

I do not care who is a "Queen" and who is not, I only care that they OBEY the law and do not proposition other men (yuck) in the restroom.

[patton]

Actually, his real crime is in not knowing that as a sitting senator (ahem), he could not be arrested.

20 years in congress, and he never read the constitution.

Jail him.

[gathersnomoss]

As we speak about Craig, tapping his foot in a men’s room trying to get his kicks, The United States Constitution is being raped and America is being overthrown from within.

Turn off the stupid box.

[patton]

Turn off the stupid box?

Noooo....I find it rather entertaining, today. I love it when corrupt pols do the perp walk.

[gathersnomoss]

enjoy.

[beezdotcom]

I’m no fan of bathroom buggery either. Ick. I just don’t know why it’s illegal to ask someone for sex UNLESS he was offering to pay for it.

Your instincts are correct. Unpopular here, but correct.

[beezdotcom]

OR a perverted predatory lying POS.

Undoubtedly. But I'm usually all about punishing those who have actually committed the crime, not just those who act like they were thinking about it.

[Still Thinking]

But seriously, why? What about freedom of speech?

Well, bear in mind I'm a fairly libertarian guy trying to think like a bureaucrat here, but I think the idea is they're trying to discourage public indecency (guys giving each other hummers in the restroom -- public park restrooms are infamous for this as well), and that therefore there is a sufficiently compelling public interest to justify limiting free speech. Or something like that.

[Miss Behave]

Soliciting sex in a public restroom where children are is illegala as hell...and should by all means be.

[Jacquerie]

Pubbie homos are hypocrites and must be destroyed. Rat faggots are fighting for civil rights, just like blacks in the 1960s.

[F16Fighter]

"But I'm usually all about punishing those who have actually committed the crime, not just those who act like they were thinking about it."

What's your position on premeditated murder?

[F16Fighter]

"Odd on the MSM (esp CNNCBSABCNBCMSNBC) running this story being immidiately after the Blagojevich for “balance”?"

Really??

Has anyone else noted this?

[beezdotcom]

What's your position on premeditated murder?

Is that really the question you meant to ask? Obviously, ALL murder is punishable, whether you premeditated it or not.

I assume you meant to ask about a scenario where someone was plotting to kill someone, but never actually COMMITTED the murder. If you can demonstrate hard evidence of the plot, THAT is punishable. However, if your evidence consists of two doodles, a frowny face and a gun, and you claim knowledge that doodles and frowny face are common signs for murder - well, I'm not sure you should be able to get a conviction out of that.


And nice job for conflating bathroom buggery with murder...I expected no less.

[beezdotcom]

Back in the 80’s a couple of local sheriffs depts in Texas started busting people for using highway rest stops as meeting places. It was later determined that NONE of the people arrested (at least by one sheriff in N Texas) was guilty. The arrested citizens pled guilty to a lessor offense and paid a fine rather than make the arrest public knowledge.

That's what worries me about this case. Craig most likely IS a pervert - but the weak, subjective evidence for an actual crime presented here allows room for misinterpretation. There is a lot of incentive to quickly plead guilty in hopes of keeping the arrest quiet (which obviously backfired).

Let's put it this way: I sure don't want 0bama's Citizen Patrols to be able to arrest people for equally weak subjective evidence.

[F16Fighter]

"What's your position on premeditated murder?"

"Is that really the question you meant to ask?"

No. I meant to ask, "Are you THIS dumb??"

"Obviously, ALL murder is punishable, whether you premeditated it or not."

"Obviously"? No, not from your perspective.

"I assume you meant to ask [me] about a scenario where someone was plotting to kill someone, but never actually COMMITTED the murder. If you can demonstrate hard evidence of the plot, THAT is punishable. However, if your evidence consists of two doodles, a frowny face and a gun, and you claim knowledge that doodles and frowny face are common signs for murder - well, I'm not sure you should be able to get a conviction out of that."

Nice convoluted theatrics. Except the evidence of Larry Craig's crime wasn't just doodling pictures of his "private parts" and open-mouthed boys. Apparently Counselor, your only criminal criteria for busting Larry Craig was video tape evidence of him whipping out his privates, pointing to his crotch, and uttering the phase, "DO ME NOW!"

The fact is/was Larry Craig's "non-crime" - habitually and blatantly soliciting Boys Rooms for sex - was clearly known...AND illegal; In fact the Senator was SO blatant about his premeditated BJ come-ons that he was a simple mark for a Sting Operation.

"And nice job for conflating bathroom buggery with murder...I expected no less."

"Premeditated" is a VERY relative word for you, isn't it? Oh...and say "hi" to ex-NJ Governor Jim McGreevey for me.

[A_perfect_lady]

Well, bear in mind I'm a fairly libertarian guy trying to think like a bureaucrat here, but I think the idea is they're trying to discourage public indecency (guys giving each other hummers in the restroom -- public park restrooms are infamous for this as well), and that therefore there is a sufficiently compelling public interest to justify limiting free speech. Or something like that.

Understood. And they should arrest people doing it. But they shouldn't be arresting people because they SUSPECT he MIGHT have been THINKING about doing it. I mean... unless Craig out and out propositioned him and clearly stated that he wanted to do something illegal, this is "thought police" territory.

[beezdotcom]

No. I meant to ask, "Are you THIS dumb??"

Lighten up, Frances. If that's what you meant to ask, you did a pretty poor job of it.

"Obviously"? No, not from your perspective.

Once again, wrong. It's perfectly obvious to me. I thought the argument was about what consitutes evidence, not what constitutes a crime. Surely, you know the difference...?

The fact is/was Larry Craig's "non-crime" - habitually and blatantly soliciting Boys Rooms for sex - was clearly known...AND illegal

Maybe you DON'T know the difference. What Craig was charged with WAS a crime, and rightly so. What is in dispute is whether or not there was sufficient evidence to FILE a charge for said crime.

As to how well-KNOWN his habit was...well, maybe it was well-known in the circles YOU run in...the rest of us probably aren't as well-versed on the case history as apparently YOU are.

In fact the Senator was SO blatant about his premeditated BJ come-ons that he was a simple mark for a Sting Operation.

Like I say, I've never read anything to suggest that he was blatant; the most I read is that "there was talk" about his proclivities - but do illuminate us to your advanced knowledge of his come-on techniques.

Oh...and say "hi" to ex-NJ Governor Jim McGreevey for me.

Now it makes sense, Frances...is that the source for your special knowledge?



Are we now done with the childish ranting and bashing, and prepared to discuss why I should NOT be worried about whether or not police overstated their evidence in this case? Because the mainstream media breathlessly reporting on their perception of transgressions by an 'evil Republican' is not usually my FIRST indication of how solid a case really is. If you can intelligently and without ad hominem attacks demonstrate how they may have had evidence that was less subjective, I'm more than willing to listen. If you would rather attack me as a pervert-lover (I'm NOT) instead of a hater of weak evidence, then I'm less than interested.

I'm just very concerned with how much closer and closer we get to a '1984' world, where the mere thought becomes the crime. No, I'm not even worried about that - I'm more worried about the world where someone else's GUESS as to your thoughts are enough to convict you of thought crime. If you tell me that we're nowhere close to that - well, gosh, I'd be very happy if that's true - I just don't see it.

[Still Thinking]

Understood. And they should arrest people doing it. But they shouldn't be arresting people because they SUSPECT he MIGHT have been THINKING about doing it. I mean... unless Craig out and out propositioned him and clearly stated that he wanted to do something illegal, this is "thought police" territory.

Agreed. I don't know how explicit his suggestion was. I know about the "wide stance" and the "toe tapping" that suggested to the cop Craig was interested in some action, but I'd been assuming there was some more explicit communication after that (and wasn't interested enough in the case to check for sure). I would think there would have had to have been or Craig would have just said "Bite me" when they tried to prosecute. Course then they'd have had all they needed. ;-)